| Author | Title | Year | Journal/Proceedings | Reftype | DOI/URL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amaral, P., Roberts, C. and Smith, E.A. | Review of The Logic of Conventional Implicatures by Chris Potts | 2007 | Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 30, pp. 707-749 |
article | DOI |
| Abstract: We review Potts’ influential book on the semantics of conventional implicature (CI), offering an explication of his technical apparatus and drawing out the proposal’s implications, focusing on the class of CIs he calls supplements. While we applaud many facets of this work, we argue that careful considerations of the pragmatics of CIs will be required in order to yield an empirically and explanatorily adequate account. | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Amaral2007,
author = {Patricia Amaral and Craige Roberts and E. Allyn Smith},
title = {Review of The Logic of Conventional Implicatures by Chris Potts},
journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy},
year = {2007},
volume = {30},
pages = {707-749},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9025-2}
}
|
|||||
| Davis, P.C., Kasper, R. and Roberts, C. | An Integrated Approach to Reference and Presupposition Resolution | 1999 | Proceedings of the ACL '99 Workshop on the Relationship between Discourse, Dialogue Structure and Reference | inproceedings | URL |
| Abstract: We describe an approach to resolving definite descriptions and pronominal anaphora as subcases of a general strategy for presupposition satisfaction. Generally, a presupposition is satisfied in a context if the context contains a specific type of information and is organized in such a way that this information can be retrieved by the interlocutors. The model of discourse context we develop assumes that discourse structure is organized around a stack of questions under discussion, which plays a crucial role in narrowing the search for referents and other presupposed information. The algorithms for maintaining the discourse structures and retrieving presupposed information are presented and illustrated by several example dialogues in which human users interact with an agent to make hotel reservations. | |||||
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{Davis1999,
author = {Paul C Davis and Robert Kasper and Craige Roberts},
title = {An Integrated Approach to Reference and Presupposition Resolution},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the ACL '99 Workshop on the Relationship between Discourse, Dialogue Structure and Reference},
year = {1999},
url = {https://aclanthology.org/W99-0101.pdf}
}
|
|||||
| Roberts, C. | Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics | 1996 | Vol. 49Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics |
incollection | DOI |
| Abstract: A framework for pragmatic analysis is proposed which treats discourse as a game, with context as a scoreboard organized around the questions under discussion by the interlocutors. The framework is intended to be coordinated with a dynamic compositional semantics. Accordingly, the context of utterance is modeled as a tuple of different types of information, and the questions therein— modeled, as is usual in formal semantics, as alternative sets of propositions — constrain the felicitous flow of discourse. A requirement of Relevance is satisfied by an utterance (whether an assertion, a question or a suggestion) iff it addresses the question under discussion. Finally, it is argued that the prosodic focus of an utterance canonically serves to reflect the question under discussion (at least in English), placing additional constraints on felicity in context. | |||||
| Comment: The updated version is 2012 in Semantics and Pragmatics. | |||||
BibTeX:
@incollection{Roberts1996,
author = {Craige Roberts},
title = {Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics},
booktitle = {Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics},
publisher = {Ohio State University},
year = {1996},
volume = {49},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6}
}
|
|||||
| Roberts, C. | Information Structure, Plans, and Implicature [BibTeX] |
1996 | Proceedings of the 1996 AAAI Symposium on Implicature | inproceedings | |
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{Roberts1996a,
author = {Craige Roberts},
title = {Information Structure, Plans, and Implicature},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 1996 AAAI Symposium on Implicature},
year = {1996}
}
|
|||||
| Roberts, C. | Focus, the Flow of Information, and Universal Grammar [BibTeX] |
1998 | The Limits of Syntax, pp. 109-160 | incollection | URL |
BibTeX:
@incollection{Roberts1998,
author = {Craige Roberts},
title = {Focus, the Flow of Information, and Universal Grammar},
booktitle = {The Limits of Syntax},
publisher = {Academic Press},
year = {1998},
pages = {109-160},
url = {https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/roberts.21/focusflow.pdf}
}
|
|||||
| Roberts, C. | Context in Dynamic Interpretation | 2004 | Handbook of Contemporary Pragmatic Theory, pp. 197-220 | incollection | URL |
| Abstract: Here I argued for the generalized intentional structure of discourse presented in the Afterword to the 2012 version of Roberts 1996, and proposed that rhetorical relations might be thought of as particular types of strategy of inquiry. | |||||
BibTeX:
@incollection{Roberts2004,
author = {Craige Roberts},
title = {Context in Dynamic Interpretation},
booktitle = {Handbook of Contemporary Pragmatic Theory},
publisher = {Blackwell},
year = {2004},
pages = {197-220},
url = {https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/roberts.21/Context_in_Dynamic_Interpretation.pdf}
}
|
|||||
| Roberts, C., Simons, M., Beaver, D. and Tonhauser, J. | Presupposition, Conventional Implicature, and Beyond: A unified account of projection | 2009 | Proceedings of the Workshop on Presupposition | inproceedings | URL |
| Abstract: We define a notion of projective meaning which encompasses both classical presuppositions and phenomena which are usually regarded as non-presuppositional but which also display projection behavior—Horn’s assertorically inert entailments, conventional implicatures (both Grice’s and Potts’) and some conversational implicatures. We argue that the central feature of all projective meanings is that they are not-at-issue, defined as a relation to the question under discussion. Other properties differentiate various sub-classes of projective meanings, one of them the class of presuppositions according to Stalnaker. This principled taxonomy predicts differences in behavior unexpected on other models among the various conventional triggers and conversational implicatures, while holding promise for a general, explanatory account of projection which applies to all the types of meanings considered. | |||||
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{Roberts2009,
author = {Craige Roberts and Mandy Simons and David Beaver and Judith Tonhauser},
title = {Presupposition, Conventional Implicature, and Beyond: A unified account of projection},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Workshop on Presupposition},
year = {2009},
url = {https://judith-tonhauser.github.io/files/roberts-etal2009.pdf}
}
|
|||||
| Roberts, C. | Retrievability and Incomplete Descriptions [BibTeX] |
2010 | unpublished | URL | |
BibTeX:
@unpublished{Roberts2010,
author = {Craige Roberts},
title = {Retrievability and Incomplete Descriptions},
year = {2010},
url = {https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/roberts.21/Retrievability.pdf}
}
|
|||||
| Roberts, C. | only: A Case Study in Projective Meaning | 2010 | Vol. 6Formal Semantics and Pragmatics: Discourse, Context, and Models |
inproceedings | DOI |
| Abstract: I offer an integrated theory of meaning of only in which the prejacent, while not prsupposed, is both entailed and backgrounded, hence tends to project (following a general proposal about projection due to Simons et al. 2020). Moreover, I argue, contra Beaver & Brady (2008), that only is not conventionally associated with focus, the focus effects arising instead pragmatically. But I do adopt aspects of their semantics for only, including the presupposition of a pre-order over the elements of its domain. | |||||
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{Roberts2010a,
author = {Craige Roberts},
title = {only: A Case Study in Projective Meaning},
booktitle = {Formal Semantics and Pragmatics: Discourse, Context, and Models},
publisher = {The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication},
year = {2010},
volume = {6},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.4148/biyclc.v6i0.1581}
}
|
|||||
| Roberts, C. | Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics | 2012 | Semantics & Pragmatics Vol. 5, pp. 1-69 |
article | DOI |
| Abstract: A framework for pragmatic analysis is proposed which treats discourse as a game, with context as a scoreboard organized around the questions under discussion by the interlocutors. The framework is intended to be coordinated with a dynamic compositional semantics. Accordingly, the context of utterance is modeled as a tuple of different types of information, and the questions therein— modeled, as is usual in formal semantics, as alternative sets of propositions — constrain the felicitous flow of discourse. A requirement of Relevance is satisfied by an utterance (whether an assertion, a question or a suggestion) iff it addresses the question under discussion. Finally, it is argued that the prosodic focus of an utterance canonically serves to reflect the question under discussion (at least in English), placing additional constraints on felicity in context. | |||||
| Comment: Originally published in (1996) Jae-Hak Yoon and Andreas Kathol (eds.) Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 49. Published in the revised form in (1998) in Semantics and Pragmatics. This (2012) is a re-issue of the (1998) version and was followed with an afterword.
A translation into Japanese was published in the Journal of the Institute of Language Research (2020) by Wataru Okubo and Hiroki Nomoto. Link here: http://www.tufs.ac.jp/common/fs/ilr/contents/ronshuu/25/jilr25_Translateion_Roberts2012-jpn.pdf |
|||||
BibTeX:
@article{Roberts2012,
author = {Craige Roberts},
title = {Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics},
journal = {Semantics & Pragmatics},
year = {2012},
volume = {5},
pages = {1-69},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6}
}
|
|||||
| Roberts, C. | Information Structure: Afterword | 2012 | Semantics & Pragmatics Vol. 5, pp. 1-19 |
article | DOI |
| Abstract: This is the afterword to the 2012 republication of "Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics". | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Roberts2012a,
author = {Craige Roberts},
title = {Information Structure: Afterword},
journal = {Semantics & Pragmatics},
year = {2012},
volume = {5},
pages = {1-19},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.7}
}
|
|||||
| Roberts, C. | Ellipsis and Retrievability | 2012 | unpublished | ||
| Abstract: Can't find a link, is there a published version? | |||||
BibTeX:
@unpublished{Roberts2012b,
author = {Craige Roberts},
title = {Ellipsis and Retrievability},
year = {2012},
note = {In prep at time of 1st bib.}
}
|
|||||
| Roberts, C. | Topics | 2012 | Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning | incollection | URL |
| Comment: Reprinted in Portner, Maienborn, and von Heusinger (eds.) (2019) Semantics: Sentence and Information Structure, Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 381-412. | |||||
BibTeX:
@incollection{Roberts2012c,
author = {Craige Roberts},
title = {Topics},
booktitle = {Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning},
publisher = {Mouton de Gruyter},
year = {2012},
url = {https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/roberts.21/Roberts.Topics.pdf}
}
|
|||||
| Roberts, C. | Linguistic Convention and the Architecture of Interpretation [BibTeX] |
2017 | Analytic Philosophy Vol. 58(4), pp. 418-439 |
article | DOI |
BibTeX:
@article{Roberts2017,
author = {Craige Roberts},
title = {Linguistic Convention and the Architecture of Interpretation},
journal = {Analytic Philosophy},
year = {2017},
volume = {58},
number = {4},
pages = {418-439},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1111/phib.12113}
}
|
|||||
| Simons, M., Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D. and Roberts, C. | What projects and why | 2010 | Vol. 20Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), pp. 309-327 |
inproceedings | URL |
| Abstract: Projection is widely used as a diagnostic for presupposition, but many expression types yield projection even though they do not have standard properties of presupposition, for example appositives, expressives, and honorifics (Potts 2005). While it is possible to analyze projection piecemeal, clearly a unitary explanation is to be preferred. Yet we show that standard explanations of projective behavior (common ground based theories, anaphoric theories, and multi-dimensional theories) do not extend to the full range of triggers. Instead, we propose an alternative explanation based on the following claim, which is intended to apply to all content which occurs in embedded contexts: Meanings project IFF they are not at-issue, where at-issueness is defined in terms of the Roberts’ (1996) discourse theory. Thus, and despite their apparent heterogeneity, projective meaning triggers emerge as a natural class on the basis of the not at-issue status of their projective inference. | |||||
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{Simons2010,
author = {Mandy Simons and Judith Tonhauser and David Beaver and Craige Roberts},
title = {What projects and why},
booktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT)},
publisher = {CLC Publications},
year = {2010},
volume = {20},
pages = {309-327},
url = {https://judith-tonhauser.github.io/files/simons-etal-2010.pdf}
}
|
|||||
| Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Simons, M. and Roberts, C. | Towards a Taxonomy of Projective Content | 2013 | Language Vol. 89(1), pp. 66-109 |
article | URL |
| Abstract: Projective contents, which include presuppositional inferences and Potts’ (2005) conventional implicatures, are meanings which are projected when a construction is embedded, as standardly identified by the “Family of Sentences” diagnostic (e.g. Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet 1990). This paper establishes distinctions among projective contents on the basis of a series of diagnostics (including a variant of the Family of Sentences diagnostic) that can be used with linguistically untrained consultants. This methodological advance allows validity of generalizations to be examined cross-linguistically. We apply the diagnostics in two languages, focussing on Paraguayan Guaraní (Tupí-Guaraní), and comparing the results to those for English. Our study of Paraguayan Guaraní is the first systematic exploration of projective content in a language other than English. Based on the application of our diagnostics to a wide range of constructions, three meaningful subclasses of projective contents emerge. The resulting taxonomy of projective content has strong implications for contemporary theories of projection (e.g. Karttunen 1974; Heim 1983; van der Sandt 1992; Potts 2005; Schlenker 2009), which were developed for the projective properties of subclasses and fail to generalize to the full set of projective contents. | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Tonhauser2013,
author = {Judith Tonhauser and David Beaver and Mandy Simons and Craige Roberts},
title = {Towards a Taxonomy of Projective Content},
journal = {Language},
year = {2013},
volume = {89},
number = {1},
pages = {66-109},
url = {https://ling.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/horn/Tonhauser_etal_2011.pdf}
}
|
|||||